In order to dispose of the allegations and issues
raised in the Complaint as to them, Respondents Dull and Marisie have
submitted Offers of Settlement ("Offers") which the Commission
has determined to accept. Without admitting or denying any of the
allegations of the Complaint or the findings herein, Dull and Marisie
acknowledge service of this Order Making Findings and Imposing Remedial
Sanctions ("Order"). Dull and Marisie consent to the use of the
findings contained in this Order in this proceeding and in any other
proceeding brought by the Commission or to which the Commission is a
party.1

III.

The Commission finds that:

A. SUMMARY

This matter arises out of a fraudulent trade
allocation scheme perpetrated by Capital Insight Brokerage, Inc.
("Capital Insight"), a broker/dealer and registered introducing
broker, and its owner, President, and associated person, S. Jay Goldinger
("Goldinger").2 From at
least January 1994 to December 1995, Goldinger traded for his customers
through Refco, a futures commission merchant ("FCM"). Goldinger
fraudulently allocated trades among his customers, based upon the
trades' profitability, by, among other things, delaying the
assignment of customer account numbers until after trades had been
executed, and by causing Refco employees to change account numbers for
executed trades in order to transfer executed trades between customer
accounts.

From at least January 1994 to December 1995, Dull and
Marisie accepted orders from Goldinger for Refco's customer accounts
and did not obtain account identification at the time many of the orders
were received. Dull and Marisie were registered floor brokers and
therefore directly violated Section 4g of the Act and Regulation
1.35(a-1)(2). They also aided and abetted Refco's violations of
Section 4g of the Act and Regulation 1.35(a-1)(1) and (2) by failing to
obtain account identification at the time they received orders, by
filling in account identification on orders already executed without such
identification, and by changing the account identification on orders
already executed.

B. RESPONDENTS

1. Margaret Dull, who resides in Flossmoor,
Illinois, was registered with the Commission as a floor broker from
November 1993 to June 1995, pursuant to Sections 4e and 4f of the Act,
7 U.S.C. §§ 6e, 6f. Dull was employed by Refco as a
phone clerk from August 1990 to May 1996. Dull was a member of the
Chicago Board of Trade, a contract market, for at least part of the
time in 1994 and 1995.

2. Richard Marisie, who resides in Inverness,
Illinois, has been registered with the Commission as a floor broker
since February 1987, pursuant to Sections 4e and 4f of the Act, 7
U.S.C. §§ 6e, 6f. Marisie was employed by Refco as a
phone clerk from 1983 to October 1996. Marisie was a member of the
Chicago Board of Trade, a contract market, for at least part of the
time in 1994 and 1995.

C. FACTS

From at least January 1994 through December 1995,
Goldinger had discretionary authority over approximately seventy customer
futures accounts traded through Refco. Goldinger telephoned in thousands
of Treasury bond ("T-bond") futures and options on T-bond
futures trades for these customer accounts to Dull and Marisie, who were
working as phone clerks at a Refco T-bond desk on the floor of the
Chicago Board of Trade ("Refco Desk"). Handling Goldinger's
T-bond futures and options orders constituted the substantial majority of
Dull's and Marisie's work at Refco.

Dull was primarily responsible for taking
Goldinger's orders during the day trading session. Dull frequently
spoke with Goldinger each day, taking the orders and giving him market
information. Dull sometimes told Marisie what order Goldinger was placing
so that he could write up the orders for her. Marisie also occasionally
received orders from Goldinger directly.

As Commission registrants and members of a contract
market, Dull and Marisie knew that account identification was required to
be placed immediately on all order tickets before the orders could be
executed. Nevertheless, Goldinger did not immediately give, and Dull and
Marisie did not immediately obtain, account identification for many of
the thousands of T-bond futures and options orders for Goldinger's
customers.

After the T-bond futures and options orders were
executed without account identification, Goldinger allocated profitable
and losing trades among his customers by providing Dull and/or Marisie
with the account numbers for the executed trades, including orders
originally taken by other phone clerks working at the Refco Desk. At
Goldinger's request, Dull and/or Marisie also changed account
identification on trades already assigned to an account.

D. VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT AND COMMISSION
REGULATIONS

1. Direct record-keeping
violations

Section 4g of the Act requires that FCMs,
introducing brokers, floor brokers, and floor traders make and produce
records relating to their customers' transactions and positions as
required by the Commission. Regulation 1.35(a-1)(2) requires members of
contract markets to prepare a written record of a customer order
immediately upon receipt on the floor of an exchange, including the
customer account identification and order number, while Regulation
1.35(a-1)(1) requires FCMs and introducing brokers to do the same.
Failing to place account identification on order tickets immediately
upon receipt of orders "provide[s] an opportunity to direct
profitable fills to favored accounts." In re GNP Commodities,
Inc. [1990-1992 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH)
¶25,360, at 39,214 (CFTC August 11, 1992), aff'd sub
nom. Monieson v. CFTC, 996 F.2d 852 (7th Cir. 1993).

As Commission registrants and members of a contract
market, Dull and Marisie were responsible under the Act and its
Regulations for properly preparing customer order tickets. As set forth
above, despite the fact that they knew that account identification was
required to be recorded on all orders before the orders could be
executed, Dull and Marisie, while Commission registrants and members of
a contract market, accepted many orders from Goldinger without
obtaining account identification. Because they failed to write account
identification on many of the floor order tickets immediately upon
receipt of the orders from Goldinger, Dull and Marisie directly
violated Section 4g of the Act and Regulation 1.35(a-1)(2).

2. Aiding and Abetting Refco's
record-keeping violations

In order to "aid" or "abet" a
violation of the Act or Regulations, a person must knowingly associate
himself with an unlawful venture and participate in it as something he
wishes to bring about and seek by his actions to make succeed. In re
Richardson Securities, Inc., [1980-1982 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut.
L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 21,145, at 24,642-24,646 (CFTC Jan. 27,
1981).

As set forth above, Dull and Marisie, while Refco
employees, did not properly and completely prepare the written records
of customer orders required of Refco as a FCM by Regulation 1.35(a-1).
Dull and Marisie accepted many orders from Goldinger without obtaining
account identification, Dull and/or Marisie also sometimes added
account numbers, at Goldinger's direction, to order tickets after
the orders had been executed. Finally, Dull and/or Marisie changed
account numbers for orders that had already been executed. As a result
of Dull and Marisie's conduct as Refco employees, Refco violated
Section 4g of the Act and Regulation 1.35(a-1). Dull and Marisie thus
aided and abetted these violations.

IV.

OFFERS OF SETTLEMENT

Dull and Marisie have submitted Offers of Settlement
in which they neither admit nor deny the allegations of the Complaint or
the findings herein. Subject to the foregoing, Dull and Marisie:
acknowledge service of this Order and admit the jurisdiction of the
Commission with respect to the matters set forth herein; waive: (1) a
hearing; (2) all post-hearing procedures; (3) judicial review by any
court; (4) any objection to the staff's participation in the
Commission's consideration of the Offers; (5) all claims which they
may possess under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C.
§ 504 (1994) and 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (1994), as amended
by Pub. L. No. 104-121, §§ 231-32, 110 Stat. 862-63, and Part
148 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. §§ 148.1, et seq.,
relating to or arising from this action; and (6) any claim of Double
Jeopardy based upon the institution of this proceeding or the entry in
this proceeding of any order imposing a civil monetary penalty or any
other relief. Dull and Marisie stipulate that the record basis on which
this Order is entered consists of the Complaint, this Order and the
findings to which they have consented in their Offers, which are
incorporated in this Order. Dull and Marisie consent to the
Commission's issuance of this Order, which makes findings as set
forth herein, and orders Dull and Marisie to cease and desist from
violating the provisions of the Act and the Regulations they are found to
have violated; orders that Dull and Marisie shall be liable for payment
of a civil monetary penalty of $15,000 each; orders Dull and Marisie to
comply with their respective undertakings as set forth in the Offers and
this Order; and places conditions on their activities for a period of two
years following the entry of this Order to the extent they act in any
capacity which involves the execution, allocation, writing, receipt or
transmission of orders for futures contracts or options on futures
contracts, other than for their own accounts, as set forth herein.

V.

FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS

Solely on the basis of the consents evidenced by the
Offers, and prior to any adjudication on the merits, the Commission finds
that Dull and Marisie violated Section 4g of the Act, and Regulation
1.35(a-1)(2), and aided and abetted violations of Section 4g of the Act
and Regulation 1.35(a-1)(1) and 1.35(a-1)(2) pursuant to Section 13(a) of
the Act.

VI.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

A. Dull and Marisie shall
cease and desist from violating Section 4g of the Act, and Regulation
1.35(a-1)(1) and 1.35(a-1)(2);

B. Dull and Marisie shall
each pay a civil monetary penalty in the amount of fifteen thousand
dollars ($15,000) within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. Dull
and Marisie shall make such payment by U.S. postal money order, certified
check, bank cashier's check, or bank money order, made payable to the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and addressed to Dennese Posey,
Division of Trading and Markets, Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
1155 21st Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20581 under cover of a
letter that identifies the Respondent and the name and docket number of
the proceeding. A copy of the cover letter and the form of payment shall
be simultaneously transmitted to Director, Division of Enforcement,
Commodity Futures Trading Commission at the following address: 1155 21st
Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20581. In accordance with Section 6(e)(2)
of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9a(2) (1994), if Dull or Marisie fails to pay
the full amount of this penalty within fifteen (15) days of the due date,
he or she shall be automatically prohibited from trading on all contract
markets and, if he or she is registered with the Commission, such
registration shall be automatically suspended until he or she shows to
the satisfaction of the Commission that payment of the full amount of the
penalty imposed against him or her with interest thereon to the date of
payment has been made;

C. Dull and Marisie shall
comply with their undertakings, as set forth in their Offers:

1. Not to take any action
or make any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any
finding in the Order, or creating, or tending to create, the impression
that the Order is without a factual basis; provided, however, that
nothing in this provision affects his or her: (i) testimonial
obligations; or (ii) right to take legal positions in other proceedings
to which the Commission is not a party.

2. For the two year period
beginning on the date of the entry of the Commission Order accepting
this Offer, not to:

a. serve on any disciplinary committee,
arbitration panel, oversight panel or governing board of any
self-regulatory organization registered or subject to regulation by
the Commission;

b. directly or indirectly act as a
principal, partner, officer, or branch office manager of any entity
registered or required to be registered with the Commission;
and

c. directly or indirectly act in any supervisory
capacity over anyone registered or required to be registered with the
Commission or over any person, whether required to be registered with
the Commission or not, involved in the execution, allocation,
writing, receipt, or transmission of orders for futures contracts or
options on futures contracts, other than for, respectively,
Dull's own account (which, as used herein, shall include the
account of Dull's husband) or Marisie's own account;
and

d. not to act in any capacity, whether
registration with the Commission is required or not, which involves
the execution, allocation, writing, receipt, or transmission of
orders for futures contracts or options on futures contracts, other
than for their own accounts, unless these activities are subject to
the following conditions:

1. These activities shall be subject to a
Supplemental Sponsor Certification Statement in the form attached
hereto, executed and submitted to the Commission by a qualified
sponsor. Immediately upon the sponsor's ceasing to act as his
or her sponsor, he or she shall stop acting in any capacity which
involves the execution, allocation, writing, receipt, or
transmission of orders for futures contracts or options on futures
contracts, other than for his or her own account until his or her
activities are once again subject to a Supplemental Sponsor
Certification Statement in the form attached hereto, executed and
submitted to the Commission by a qualified sponsor.

2. To obtain approval of a Supplemental Sponsor
Certification Statement, Dull or Marisie shall notify the Director
of the Division of Enforcement in writing by facsimile and
certified mail (addressed to Director of the Division of
Enforcement, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st
Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20581), that he or she has been
employed to act in a capacity, whether registration with the
Commission is required or not, which involves the execution,
allocation, writing, receipt, or transmission of orders for futures
contracts or options on futures contracts, other than for,
respectively, Dull's own account or Marisie's own account,
and shall forward an executed Supplemental Sponsor Certification
Statement, in the form attached hereto, for approval by the
Commission.

3. Dull's or Marisie's registration
shall be automatically suspended if, while registered with the
Commission and subject to the Supplemental Sponsor Certification
statement as provided in Paragraph VI.C.2.d.1., supra, he or
she is charged with a disciplinary offense as defined in Regulation
1.63(a)(6), 17 C.F.R. § 1.63(a)(6) (1999), except that,
as to offenses defined in Regulation 1.63(a)(6)(i)(C), suspension
shall occur if fines aggregating $5,000 or more are imposed during
the period of these restrictions rather than during a calendar
year.

4. Dull or Marisie shall immediately cease from
acting in any capacity which involves the execution, allocation,
writing, receipt, or transmission of orders for futures contracts
or options on futures contracts, other than for his or her own
account, whether registration with the Commission is required or
not, if while acting in such capacity, he or she is charged with a
disciplinary offense as defined in Regulation 1.63(a)(6), except
that, as to offenses defined in Regulation 1.63(a)(6)(i)(C),
cessation of his or her activities shall occur if fines aggregating
$5,000 or more are imposed during the period of these restrictions
rather than during a calendar year.

5. If, pursuant to the preceding two
subparagraphs, Dull's or Marisie's registration is
automatically suspended or if he or she is required to cease acting
in any capacity which involves the execution, allocation, writing,
receipt, or transmission of orders for futures contracts or options
on futures contracts, other than for his or her own account,
whether registration with the Commission is required or not,
pursuant to the preceding subparagraphs, the period of suspension
or cessation of activities shall terminate six months after the
date of the suspension or cessation, unless the Commission files
within that period a Notice of Intent to Suspend, Revoke or
Restrict Registration pursuant to Regulation 3.60(a), 17 C.F.R.
§ 3.60(a) (1999), of a Complaint pursuant to Section 6c or
6(c) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 13a-1 or 9 (1994). If
such Notice or Complaint is filed within the six-month period, he
or she shall cease acting in any capacity, which involves the
execution, allocation, writing, receipt, or transmission of orders
for futures contracts or options on futures contracts, other than
for, respectively, Dull's own account or Marisie's own
account, whether registration with the Commission is required or
not, and, if registered, his or her registration shall be
suspended, until a final order is entered resolving all issues
arising under such Notice or Complaint.

The provisions of this Order shall be effective on
this date.

By the Commission.

Dated: April 10, 2000

Jean A. Webb

Secretary to the Commission

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

NOTES:

1 Respondents do
not consent to the use of the Offers or this Order, or the findings to
which they have consented in the Offers, as the sole basis for any other
proceeding brought by the Commission other than a proceeding brought to
enforce the terms of this Order. Nor do they consent to the use of the
Offers or this Order by any other person or entity in this or any other
proceeding. The findings to which they have consented in the Offers, as
contained in this Order, are not binding on any other person or entity
named as a respondent or defendant in this or in any other
proceeding.

2 On November
12, 1999, the federal district court for the Central District of Los
Angeles entered an "Order of Permanent Injunction and Other
Equitable Relief" against Goldinger and Capital Insight, ordering
them to disgorge $6,000,000 in ill-gotten gains and enjoining them from,
inter alia, violating the Act and acting in any capacity for which
registration with the Commission is required under the Act. On December
13, 1999, Goldinger pleaded guilty in federal district court to wire
fraud for running the fraudulent allocation scheme. On May 24, 1999, the
Commission issued an order instituting proceedings, making findings and
imposing remedial sanctions against Refco, finding that in connection
with Goldinger's scheme, Refco violated Section 4g of the Act and
Regulations 1.35(a-1)(1) and 166.3, 17 C.F.R. §§ 1.35(a-1)(1),
166.3 (1999) (CFTC docket #99-12).